Should TDR improve quality of Reader's Rig photos?

[tdecosta]

Over the past year my attempts to load photos - whether to provide help, inject some humor, or sometimes just to show off - have failed, due to the 12,000 byte limitation on uploads. My camera (Sony DSC-V1) set on it's lowest resolution, results in about 640k bytes. Since other boards I post on accept my photos, I thought I would run this by to see what you think. Should we ask for a less restrictive upload size?

 

[mberry]

Size costs money. The restrictions are for a good reason. They take up a lot of space on the server(s) and bandwidth. I am all for larger size pictures but what are we willing to sacrifice for them?

 

[chriscumminsdiesel]

I just want to know how to get the picture from the camera to this web site!

 

[lmills]

try adjusting the compression of the photo on an image managing software program. you get the same size picture, but it loads much faster.

 

[Blakers]

You can reduce your pictures with Photoshop or some cheap imitation program. You can also upload your pictures to your own domain and link to them.

 

[CRuth]

Just got my first digital camera. Lemme see if this works

Well it only took six tries. I"m a little confused though. For posting pics here is it best to shoot at high resolution on the camera and then shrink it or shoot it at low resolution to start with?

 

[Blakers]

Your picture loaded ok, but it is sized too big for its resolution - hence the mozaic look. All pictures for online viewing should be 72 dpi resolution.



I always shoot at high resolution and reduce and crop it in Photoshop.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I have absolutely NO problems with 800x600 photos shot on my Sony Cybershot - and only a 2 megapixel at that:



#ad




My photos are first loaded into my "Reader's Rigs" area, then posted in various threads as appropriate - I have no complaints as to resolution or overall quality...

 

[tdecosta]

Thank you for these helpful responses. I am using "iPhoto" software on an Apple computer, and I wil continue to attempt resizing prior to uploading.

BTW, on the above post -Gary-K7GLD - it has underlined "Picture has been resized... " Is that resizing by the submitter or the website? My apologies if these questions are sorta simplistic.

 

[Blakers]

I'm not familiar with iPhoto, though I do use a Mac. I would think iPhoto would have the capability to resize and crop photos. I don't know the answer to the resize statement under Gary's picture.

 

[CRuth]

Thanks. I'm not a camera person (didnt even own a film camera prior) but especially for truck stuff its just too useful not to figure it out

 

[hagar]

You can also host your pics on an image hosting site and link to em.

http://www.imageshack.us/

This is one I've had good luck with

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

First, the limits are 112,000 bytes - not 12,000. For instructions on how to resize pictures, upload pictures to the forums or to your readers rigs, and how to put pictures from your readers rigs section in posts look in the TDR Website/roundtable FAQ forum - https://www.turbodieselregister.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=152 . I do need to update the upload to the forum instructions but if you look at it you should be able to get through it even though the pictures aren't accurate. There are good reasons to have the limit set where it is. A 112,000 byte limit will let you upload 1024x768 images - which is an entire screenful (or more) for probably 90% of the users out there. Take this picture for example - it's 97,013 bytes and is a 1024x768 photo (click on the photo for a full size picture):



#ad




We have many dial up users that use the system. A single 112,000 byte picture takes approximately 32 seconds to load on a 28k connection. A single 640k picture would take approximately 3 minutes 7 seconds to load on that 28k connection. Now imagine if you had several pictures that size on a post. In addition in order to have the forums display properly the image has to be resized to fit on the screen - the system resizes them to 560 x whatever for display. If a picture is displayed wider than what can fit on your screen then all of the text on that page will word wrap at that width and you would have to scroll left and right to read all of the text on that page.



The issue that you are having tdecosta is that your images as they are coming out of your camera are uncompressed. If you change the compression on those images to 50% (JPG) you will find that you have no noticable difference in the picture quality at all and will have a HUGE difference in the file size. That picture above at 50% compression is 97,013 bytes at 50% compression, at no compression it's 491,480 bytes. Here is that same picture uncompressed - #ad
. Compare the two and I doubt you'll notice any difference at all although the file size is 506% smaller. That picture uncompressed would take approximately 2 minutes 20 seconds to download on that 28k dial up connection. We take speed issues of the users very seriously here and try to do everything we can to keep speed up while providing as many services as possible. Hopefully this helps to explain further the reasoning that the limits are set where they are - please feel free to ask any questions.



-Steve St. Laurent

Webmaster



P. S. I'm moving this to the website forum.

 

[CRuth]

At the risk of sounding elitist. Why would anyone be running at 28. 8k? A 56k modem can be picked for ten dollars or less. Still, I see your point, however, how bout a part a thread where someone can link their pics, and let someone more graphically knowledgeable fix it or help show em how?

 

[MMiller]

We live in Southern Iowa and have been on dial up since we moved here in March, because it was our only affordable option. Modem was not made available to our area until about a week ago. To get faster internet through our TV satalight would be outragous. Sure we could afford it but then the fun money would be less.



That is why we are on dialup, until we get our modem up and running. It sucks, especailly since we used to have high speed internet at our last house. :{



Michael

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

That happens all the time CRuth, people usually post that they are having trouble posting pictures and ask for help and someone comes on and has them email them the pics and puts them up for them. The directions in the FAQ are very specific though including which program to download and where and exactly what to do so resize the picture and what steps to go through to post them. I don't know of anyone yet that has read the steps in the FAQ that hasn't been able to post their pictures.



As to 56k versus 28k many ISP's still do not support 56k and many people are in rural areas where they do not get clean phone lines and get stuck down at 28k. Even at 56k a single 640k picture would take a minute and a half to download. When it's simply a matter of needing to save the file with compression without losing any noticeable picture quality it doesn't make sense to up the limit and be wasteful of bandwidth and peoples time.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"At the risk of sounding elitist. Why would anyone be running at 28. 8k?"



AHHhh, the viewpoints of those fortunate enough to live in the mainstream, and ignorant of how the REST of the world must function!



For *YEARS*, I was stuck at a best normal dialup speed of 26. 4 - no DSL was even available in our northern California location... Sure, later advancements finally made satellite Internet available - but the extra $$$ for only occasional speed advantages such as up/downloading pictures made the expense too high for more casual users.



And where we are now, we DO have high-speed DSL - but our monthly phone bill that USED to be about $50 a month, including my Netzero Internet, is now nearly $100 a month...



It isn't about being, or NOT being "elitist" - it IS often about doing the best ya can with what ya GOT! - and often, we ain't all GOT the same!

 

[SRadke]

As to 56k versus 28k many ISP's still do not support 56k and many people are in rural areas where they do not get clean phone lines and get stuck down at 28k.

28k would be cool. At home I get 22-24 depending on the day. Must be on the end of the line.



-Scott

 

[CRuth]

Well I guess I need to be very thankful I have a good connection. I figured by now everyone would be able to do 56k, I guess I need to get out more. Hmmm, trucks fueled up, maybe I ought to do just that.

 

[SRadke]

... . I guess I need to get out more. Hmmm, trucks fueled up, maybe I ought to do just that.

Sounds like a good time



-Scott